Working group membership

[rvagg]

Ideally this working group should be run by doers rather than talkers, so people either with the time to devote to maintaining LTS branches and releases or are able to represent resources to devote to this.

I haven't actually consulted properly with the initial list of people I'm proposing in this PR, so this is not authoritative, simply a way to kickstart the discussion.

I'm pulling in NodeSource folk because we have very strongly aligned interests here: @rvagg, @trevnorris, @thlorenz.

I've pulled in StrongLoop via @bnoordhuis, perhaps there's others that could be nominated? I know StrongLoop is similarly aligned with LTS needs.

I've pulled in @indutny for Voxer, I don't know how good the alignment or fit here is, feel free to comment Fedor.

I've pulled in @geek for Walmart, again I don't know how sensible this is, feel free to comment Wyatt.

Although I haven't listed anyone in this PR, I'm wondering if @kevinmehall is able to be involved on behalf of Tessel.

I imagine that both IBM and Joyent would have strong interests in this process but may not want to join at this stage.

It's also possible that heavy users, beyond those I've listed, like PayPal and Netflix are interested in contributing to this effort, but again, unless they want to contribute people-power then I'd personally rather not see this overloaded this with talkers, that's not in the spirit of the open governance model we have going on here (i.e. basically, those who do the work get to decide).

[rvagg]

I meant to add @brycebaril as the list of possible members too, he'll need to decide whether it makes sense or not to be deeply involved but this also falls within in his area of interest at NodeSource.

[indutny]

Sounds good to me.

[bnoordhuis]

@piscisaureus is the other obvious SL candidate.

[bnoordhuis]

Can you drop the twitter link? The account is just a name squatting countermeasure, I don't do (or like) twitter.

[mikeal]

I would also suggest @jasnell from IBM if he has the time.

[jasnell]

Yes I'd have the time. Thanks for the thought.
On Apr 5, 2015 12:02 PM, "Mikeal Rogers" notifications@github.com wrote:

I would also suggest @jasnell https://github.com/jasnell from IBM if he
has the time.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2 (comment).

[piscisaureus]

@piscisaureus is the other obvious SL candidate.

I'll join if you need me. But @rvagg said he prefers do-ers over talkers so I may be the wrong person.

What I would suggest though is to not operate blindly, but to find some potential LTS users and talk to them to figure out what their requirements and considerations are. I can help with that too.

[geek]

I will make time to help out and be more of a doer in this working group. Thanks for the consideration.

[rvagg]

Let's see if we can get together some time next week, here's a doodle which I've tried to make as open as possible from my end with times most likely to overlap with others but I'm open to feedback on adding additional times - for example we may have trouble with @indutny's times there so potentially could add a compromise time that's an hour earlier in the large block each day (6am for me).

Please add yourself if you think you'd be a good fit for this group and we'll try and kick something off -- I don't think there needs to be significant administrative overhead just to get something started here.

http://doodle.com/a4snra3avtp37pap

[misterdjules]

@rvagg I would like to participate in this group, especially since features such as postmortem debugging and specifically mdb have been brought up in #5.

[rvagg]

great @misterdjules, I'm going to try and organise a meeting the week after next

I also think maybe @jfhbrook and @wraithan might be interested in pitching in to help move LTS forward since they are have been so vocal with opinions! Maybe their employers can even sanction a bit of work time for them to be involved given it's in their interests to do so? (I'm not -ing btw, I'd love you both to join if you can find the time).

[ofrobots]

@rvagg I would like to be involved with this group as well.

[wraithan]

Somehow this got buried in my inbox until today.

I'm currently asking my company for time as I don't have much outside of work time to do this. Luckily it can play well with our periodic customer interviews as I can talk with some of our bigger more enterprise customers about their needs for LTS or encourage them to contribute to this WG as well. It is currently in the discussion process above me. I'll check back in once I know the results.

It looks to be the bulk of the work will be backporting patches and patching bugs that exist in older versions. Is that an accurate assessment?

[rvagg]

@wraithan that, and also monitoring ongoing work to surface patches that should be backported in the first place. I imagine once we have ~4 separate release lines coming out of the same repo, managing issues and pull requests is going to become so much more intensive; there'll be triage work and then a backlog for LTS.

Another area of responsibility we'll have to allocate is cutting LTS releases which I think should be a separate job to cutting releases off master and next, so there's a possible job for you there too.

One thing you could do right now is give feedback on the current proposed plan: https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/#proposed-lts also soliciting feedback from some larger New Relic Node clients on this would be super-helpful. I've started reaching out to some contacts but the more enterprise eyes on this the better.